Optimizing Chill Touch

[Olo Demonsbane]

I had never really used chill touch before, but a recent rereading makes it look a lot better than I had remembered. A link is here (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/chillTouch.htm), for reference.

From what I am seeing, it looks like, instead of letting you make touch attacks over a set of rounds, like produce flame does, it lets you make one melee touch attack per level as part of casting the spell. I dug into the Rules Compendium for to try and confirm this, and it says on page 136:



Casting time takes precedence over normal
rules for attacks, unless a spell’s description says otherwise.
If a spell allows its caster to make multiple attacks and has
a casting time of 1 standard action, all those attacks occur
during that standard action. The caster uses the highest
applicable attack bonus for each attack in such a case.


That turns chill touch from a way to conserve spell slots into a way to make a flurry of touch attacks.

But how do we optimize this? Here are some ideas:


You can apply Fell Drain or Fell Frighten, but I don't think they will apply multiple times to the same target, which is a shame.
Are there other metamagic feats that would work better? Poison Spell, maybe?
If you use Snowcasting, Energy Substitution, and Born of Three Thunders, you can force 3*CL saves on a single first level spell.
Would sneak attack apply to all of the touch attacks? Do the volley rules apply to melee attacks as well as ranged ones? If so, you could increase the casting time with a metamagic spell. Rogue 1/Dread Necromancer X with Craven does X*(2d6+X+1) damage with a first level spell, or an average of 128 damage at level 9.
This could also work very nicely on a DFI Bard. They don't get it on their spell list, but you could get around that with Wyrm Wizard, or just by having a Bard in your party.
This would work very nicely with any effects that trigger on every touch. Soul Eater is the example that most easily leaps to mind. What are some other good ones?
Similarly, I had a whole build snippet figured out using chill touch, Shape Soulmeld for gloves of the poisioned soul, and venomfire before realizing the soulmeld triggers only once per round.
I don't think this works with Stormguard Warrior's Combat Rhythm, but could you imagine if it did? At CL 10, you would spend a spell to charge up, and then make 10 touch attacks for 1d6+50 damage the next turn.


Does this actually work like I am thinking it does? What ideas does everyone else have?

[Troacctid]

Are there other metamagic feats that would work better? Poison Spell, maybe?
I like Slimy Spell and Forceful Spell. Nice cheap debuffs.


If you use Snowcasting, Energy Substitution, and Born of Three Thunders, you can force 3*CL saves on a single first level spell.
Born of the Three Thunders says the spell "concludes with a mighty thunderclap" so I would say it only thriggers once, after making all the attacks, hitting anyone who took damage from the spell.


Would sneak attack apply to all of the touch attacks? Do the volley rules apply to melee attacks as well as ranged ones? If so, you could increase the casting time with a metamagic spell. Rogue 1/Dread Necromancer X with Craven does X*(2d6+X+1) damage with a first level spell, or an average of 128 damage at level 9.
If you have a damage bonus to a spell that makes multiple attacks, it only applies to the first attack by that spell each round (regardless of whether that attack hits or misses). Casting time doesn't matter. Unfortunately this means sneak attack is a no, as are Touch Spell Specialization, warmage edge, and similar effects. (Well, maybe "unfortunately" is the wrong word...it's probably for the best that it doesn't work.)

This also means that even though you can deliver touches with unarmed strikes if you have Improved Unarmed Strike, there's not much point in doing so for any attacks beyond the first each turn.


This could also work very nicely on a DFI Bard. They don't get it on their spell list, but you could get around that with Wyrm Wizard, or just by having a Bard in your party.
See above.


This would work very nicely with any effects that trigger on every touch. Soul Eater is the example that most easily leaps to mind. What are some other good ones?
The usual one is the Sickening Grasp feat.

You might also enjoy the gauntlets of the blood-lord from MIC.


I don't think this works with Stormguard Warrior's Combat Rhythm, but could you imagine if it did? At CL 10, you would spend a spell to charge up, and then make 10 touch attacks for 1d6+50 damage the next turn.
You are correct, it does not.


Does this actually work like I am thinking it does? What ideas does everyone else have?
I'm just imagining the look on your face when you find out about storm touch, tbh. 👀

[Segev]

This is the first time I've seen it read as enabling all the touch attacks in a single standard action.

One thing you might look into is whether the rules on stacking a touch attack with a normal natural weapon attack would enable you to make a natural weapon attack a rider on the touch attack, rather than the other way around, so you could get a massive single attack that triggers CL times. Polymorph into a Large dragon for a 2d6 bite attack, or a Huge one for 4d6, and then cast chill touch for CL 5d6 attacks.

It's also really good for Fell Animate, if you can use it on a flurry of low-hp targets to create a bunch of zombies in one action.



Now, admittedly, the way I'd always seen it, it was a number of touches, and you could "store" them the way you hold any touch attack, not enabling every attack. But I'm not confident enough in that reading to say your reading is incorrect.

[Olo Demonsbane]

I like Slimy Spell and Forceful Spell. Nice cheap debuffs.

I knew about Forceful Spell, but I had somehow missed Slimy Spell before now. A Reflex save-based nauseate?


If you have a damage bonus to a spell that makes multiple attacks, it only applies to the first attack by that spell each round (regardless of whether that attack hits or misses). Casting time doesn't matter. Unfortunately this means sneak attack is a no, as are Touch Spell Specialization, warmage edge, and similar effects. (Well, maybe "unfortunately" is the wrong word...it's probably for the best that it doesn't work.)

Yeah, that probably is for the best. So we need to focus on other rider effects, rather than large damage boosts.



The usual one is the Sickening Grasp feat.

You might also enjoy the gauntlets of the blood-lord from MIC.

As nice as Sickening Grasp is on a Dread Necromancer, the fact that it doesn't stack with itself makes it only semi-useful in this case. I definitely wouldn't pass it up, though, especially if loading up other Save or Suck effects on the touch. Those gaunlets are pretty spiffy too.



I'm just imagining the look on your face when you find out about storm touch, tbh. 👀

My eyes bulged out of their sockets a bit. :smalltongue:

It's spells like these that make DM-ing for casters so hard sometimes. Your average 9th level evoker could grab this spell and unleash 81d6 electricity damage and 9 saves vs stunning with absolutely no optimization or prewarning.



Alright, quick build stub:.
Human Archivist 6
Feats: Touch of Golden Ice (1st), Slimy Spell (Human), Scribe Scroll (Archivist1), FREE (3rd), Sickening Grasp (6th)
Notable Spells: chill touch from Divine Magician, venomfire from Druid

Cast venomfire on yourself in the morning. You naturally produce poison, due to Touch of Golden Ice, so you are a valid target. Now your touch deals 6d6 acid damage, automatically sickens your opponent, and forces a fortitude save vs Dex damage. Prepare a good number of chill touch and Slimy chill touch spells in your 1st and 2nd level slots. Sickening Grasp increases your necromancy CL by 1, so your basic chill touch will deal up to 7d6 cold damage and 42d6 acid damage, along with 7 saves vs poison and 7 saves vs 3 rounds of sickening.

[Troacctid]

I knew about Forceful Spell, but I had somehow missed Slimy Spell before now. A Reflex save-based nauseate?
Yep. One of the only ones in the game. Since it's not a Fortitude save, it can actually affect undead and constructs normally! Turns out they're not actually immune to the nauseated condition—just most of the effects that cause it.


Cast venomfire on yourself in the morning. You naturally produce poison, due to Touch of Golden Ice, so you are a valid target.
Golden ice is a ravage, not a poison, so this doesn't work, although Touch of Golden Ice is still a fine combo with chill touch.

If I were going hard on chill touch, I'd probably look to be an arcane caster for Arcane Thesis and just load metamagic onto it. If you go sorcerer, you could take the aligned spellcaster ACF, give all your spells the evil descriptor, and use one of those fancy holy symbols of Gruumsh to add +1 damage per die to evil spells.

[ExLibrisMortis]

You could use a psi-spell feat to add a fun rider to chill touch.

Solid Freeze adds immobilization to any [cold] spell or power. Fort negates, DC equal to that of the spell or power.

Energy Substitution (acid) plus Agitated Causticity adds a -1 AC penalty per 5 damage dealt. Fort negates. Unusual in that it forces a save for every 5 points of damage dealt, so a successful save negates one -1 penalty only (the penalties are cumulative).

Energy Substitution (electricity) plus Bioelectrical Surge adds 2 points of Dexterity damage per 10 damage dealt. Like Agitated Causticity, this is a separate save for every lot of ten damage.

Energy Flare lets you increase a spell's damage die by one step. Not much, but it's something.

With Maximize Spell, you'll reliably trigger Agitated Causticity.
With Maximize and Admixture, you'll reliably trigger Bioelectrical Surge.

Adding more damage (e.g. Empower Spell, Energy Flare, +damage per die bonuses) can get you multiple triggers per hit, but that's probably not too important.

Strength of my enemy adds a Strength damage rider to one natural weapon of your choice. I guess unarmed strike counts, but touch attacks probably don't.

[daremetoidareyo]

Mobile spellcasting so you can move and touch a bunch

[Olo Demonsbane]

Golden ice is a ravage, not a poison, so this doesn't work, although Touch of Golden Ice is still a fine combo with chill touch.

I rechecked BoED, and you are right. There are many lines saying “like a poison”, but nothing explicitly letting us conflate the two.



If I were going hard on chill touch, I'd probably look to be an arcane caster for Arcane Thesis and just load metamagic onto it. If you go sorcerer, you could take the aligned spellcaster ACF, give all your spells the evil descriptor, and use one of those fancy holy symbols of Gruumsh to add +1 damage per die to evil spells.

That’s definitely a good option, but we still do need to do something with all of the touch attacks, or it would be better to use one of the more typical Mailman-friendly spells.


You could use a psi-spell feat to add a fun rider to chill touch.

I love seeing psi-spell feats used to do more than just qualify for Mind Mage! Strangely enough, chill touch doesn’t do cold damage. Something else I never realized before today. That puts a damper on using any of the energy related feats, at least barring Elven Spell Lore or something like that.


A couple of martial stances, such as martial spirit or maybe blood in the water, could
work very nicely at a higher CL. Boost up your CL to really high levels using Circle Magic or Psiotheurgist, and you could heal quite a bit with martial spirit.

[Darg]

Some touch spells, such as teleport and water walk, allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

Sorry to say this but both Chill Touch and Storm Touch only discharge once but you can touch as many as you can reach and is allowed by the caster level limit in the round you do. It wouldn't apply to the same target more than once just like any other spell that allows multiple targets.

[Troacctid]

Sorry to say this but both Chill Touch and Storm Touch only discharge once but you can touch as many as you can reach and is allowed by the caster level limit in the round you do. It wouldn't apply to the same target more than once just like any other spell that allows multiple targets.
Do you have a rules quote to back this up? Because it's not at all what the spell says in its description, and I'm not aware of any general rule to this effect either.

[SirNibbles]

If you have a damage bonus to a spell that makes multiple attacks, it only applies to the first attack by that spell each round (regardless of whether that attack hits or misses). Casting time doesn't matter. Unfortunately this means sneak attack is a no, as are Touch Spell Specialization, warmage edge, and similar effects. (Well, maybe "unfortunately" is the wrong word...it's probably for the best that it doesn't work.)

This is not technically 100% correct.




Some weaponlike spells can strike multiple times in the same round. When the caster receives a bonus on damage rolls or some form of extra damage (such as precision damage) with such spells, the extra damage applies only on the first attack, whether that attack hits or not.


Rules Compendium, page 136


By strict RAW, that only applies for weaponlike spells. Of course, that rule does apply in this case because Chill Touch is a weaponlike spell.

___





Precision damage applies on any attack that meets the requirements of the ability that grants the damage. This includes multiple attacks made during a full attack. If conditions somehow change between multiple attacks, attacks that not longer meet the ability’s requirements can’t deal precision damage.

A form of attack that enables an attacker to make multiple attacks during an action other than a full-round action, such as the Manyshot feat (standard action) or a quickened scorching ray (swift action), allows precision damage to be applied only to the first attack in the group.


Rules Compendium, page 42


It's hard to know whether the rule on page 136 was intended to disqualify all weaponlike spells from getting extra damage or if it was just a (poor) restatement of the full-round action rule on page 42, since there are pretty much no spells with a casting time of 1 full round (so no spell would be able to benefit without changing the casting time).

[sleepyphoenixx]

Do you have a rules quote to back this up? Because it's not at all what the spell says in its description, and I'm not aware of any general rule to this effect either.

He is correct because of Chill Touch's target line.

Targets: Creature or creatures touched (up to one/level)
It'd be different if it was an effect spell like Scorching Ray instead but it's not. You either target a creature or you don't.

Since Chill Touch makes no allowance otherwise you can't target the same creature twice with it anymore than you could with Mass Hold Monster or similar spells.
And since the rules for touch attacks and holding a charge explicitly forbid you from holding the charge on multi-target touch spells any charges you can't use when you cast the spell are wasted.

[Aegis013]

You can increase the potency a little bit using Poison Spell feat from DotU to add a poison as a material component. It should make all of your Chill Touch attacks also inflict the contact or injury poison you consume.

[daremetoidareyo]

You're limited by opponents you can reach though. So warrior shugenja ancestor feat from dragon 318, and mobile spellcasting allow you to cast defensively and move as part of the standard action of casting a spell with a dc 26 concentrarion check, and if you fail the check, you can just opt to eat aoos, as you stroll along chill touching everyone.

[sleepyphoenixx]

You're limited by opponents you can reach though. So warrior shugenja ancestor feat from dragon 318, and mobile spellcasting allow you to cast defensively and move as part of the standard action of casting a spell with a dc 26 concentrarion check, and if you fail the check, you can just opt to eat aoos, as you stroll along chill touching everyone.

You could just use Spectral Hand to touch every enemy in medium range.

[Troacctid]

This is not technically 100% correct.




Some weaponlike spells can strike multiple times in the same round. When the caster receives a bonus on damage rolls or some form of extra damage (such as precision damage) with such spells, the extra damage applies only on the first attack, whether that attack hits or not.


Rules Compendium, page 136


By strict RAW, that only applies for weaponlike spells. Of course, that rule does apply in this case because Chill Touch is a weaponlike spell.

___





Precision damage applies on any attack that meets the requirements of the ability that grants the damage. This includes multiple attacks made during a full attack. If conditions somehow change between multiple attacks, attacks that not longer meet the ability’s requirements can’t deal precision damage.

A form of attack that enables an attacker to make multiple attacks during an action other than a full-round action, such as the Manyshot feat (standard action) or a quickened scorching ray (swift action), allows precision damage to be applied only to the first attack in the group.


Rules Compendium, page 42

I don't see what's incorrect about it. Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage is, by definition, a weaponlike spell. If it doesn't make attacks, it can't make multiple attacks, and if it doesn't do damage, it can't do extra damage, so AFAICT my statement was accurate.


It's hard to know whether the rule on page 136 was intended to disqualify all weaponlike spells from getting extra damage or if it was just a (poor) restatement of the full-round action rule on page 42, since there are pretty much no spells with a casting time of 1 full round (so no spell would be able to benefit without changing the casting time).
It's actually very easy to know, since the rule on page 136 predates Rules Compendium's volley rule. It was originally introduced in Complete Arcane, and was reprinted in RC.


He is correct because of Chill Touch's target line.

It'd be different if it was an effect spell like Scorching Ray instead but it's not. You either target a creature or you don't.

Since Chill Touch makes no allowance otherwise you can't target the same creature twice with it anymore than you could with Mass Hold Monster or similar spells.
And since the rules for touch attacks and holding a charge explicitly forbid you from holding the charge on multi-target touch spells any charges you can't use when you cast the spell are wasted.
It very clearly says "up to" that many creatures. So you can absolutely target just one creature and still make one attack per level. Nothing in the spell limits you to just one attack per target.

[Kalkra]

I'll mention that if you do hit multiple targets, some damage boosters will affect each target, like Death Frost Spell from the Shackled City Adventure Path, (1st party-ish, also in Dungeon #109), which is a +1 metamagic that adds +2d6 cold damage to any creature affected by the spell.

[Darg]

It very clearly says "up to" that many creatures. So you can absolutely target just one creature and still make one attack per level. Nothing in the spell limits you to just one attack per target.

The PHB has this under holding the charge:


Some touch spells, such as teleport and water walk, allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can’t hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

You can't hold the charge at the very least. Meaning you would have to cast and attack with all your attacks in the same round. Enlightened fist or a quickened cast would do it.

[Troacctid]

The PHB has this under holding the charge:



You can't hold the charge at the very least. Meaning you would have to cast and attack with all your attacks in the same round.
Yes. That is how it works. You cast the spell, make a bunch of attacks as part of the standard action casting time, and then the spell is done. The attacks can be against different creatures or all against the same one. You can't split it up over multiple rounds; they all happen at once.
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/streetfighter/images/8/8d/File-GenAnimation.gif/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/194?cb=20100102121932

[Darg]

Yes. That is how it works. You cast the spell, make a bunch of attacks as part of the standard action casting time, and then the spell is done. The attacks can be against different creatures or all against the same one. You can't split it up over multiple rounds; they all happen at once.
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/streetfighter/images/8/8d/File-GenAnimation.gif/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/194?cb=20100102121932

Nothing says that you get more than one free touch attack against a target with the casting of the spell either. The rules allow one attack per target as part of the casting of the spell. The spell doesn't give you more attacks, it allows you to use the touch attack up to an amount.


You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level.

Notice how it doesn't say that you make or get melee touch attacks?

[tiercel]

I guess I’m wondering a couple of things:

1) How does the “up to 1 attack/level” clause work if one doesn’t have, or doesn’t use, Rules Compendium?

The way I’d commonly seen it ruled at actual tables was that you could use attacks at a rate dictated by BAB (with any modifications, like haste, or presumably even AoO) and were considered to be “holding the charge” as long as uses remained and you didn’t cast another spell to end the held charge. Without RC’s explicit language, the spell itself seems a lot more ambiguous.

2) (A bit off topic but related.) Is there a comprehensive list of changes wrought by Rules Compendium?

Perhaps my least favorite thing about Rules Compendium is looking through it, thinking “but these are rules I already know,” only for quietly there to be a number of rules changes—something that alters a specific rule stated differently before RC, or a rule never explicitly stated as such before RC—that only exist in RC (and presumably, only exist in an actual game if you both have and use RC, unless it’s something you already houseruled in... which can touch on the idea of whether, by RAW, RC even can change the rules, technically).

Something like a “Rules Compendium changelog” would be very helpful to anyone seeking to actually use RC (or deciding whether to get or use it).

[Darg]

I guess I’m wondering a couple of things:

1) How does the “up to 1 attack/level” clause work if one doesn’t have, or doesn’t use, Rules Compendium?

The way I’d commonly seen it ruled at actual tables was that you could use attacks at a rate dictated by BAB (with any modifications, like haste, or presumably even AoO) and were considered to be “holding the charge” as long as uses remained and you didn’t cast another spell to end the held charge. Without RC’s explicit language, the spell itself seems a lot more ambiguous.

2) (A bit off topic but related.) Is there a comprehensive list of changes wrought by Rules Compendium?

Perhaps my least favorite thing about Rules Compendium is looking through it, thinking “but these are rules I already know,” only for quietly there to be a number of rules changes—something that alters a specific rule stated differently before RC, or a rule never explicitly stated as such before RC—that only exist in RC (and presumably, only exist in an actual game if you both have and use RC, unless it’s something you already houseruled in... which can touch on the idea of whether, by RAW, RC even can change the rules, technically).

Something like a “Rules Compendium changelog” would be very helpful to anyone seeking to actually use RC (or deciding whether to get or use it).

1) You get your 1 free attack against a target or 1 free attacks on targets up to the limit. If you quickened the spell, you could make more attacks on a single target using your actions that round if you possess them. Otherwise you still possess your AoOs or extra attacks from a snake's swiftness or some such. You lose the charges at the end of the round and you can't hold the charge of a multi-target touch spell.

[tiercel]

You lose the charges at the end of the round and you can't hold the charge of a multi-target touch spell.

I know RC explicitly states that last bit, but without RC, is there anything that explicitly says so? Again, my experience with chill touch is table experience and frankly it hasn't come up all that many times, but what I've seen in my experience is usually ruled (house ruled?) that remaining charges can be held normally/potentially used later.

I think that makes sense in a "what works in the games I've been in" way, since allowing a flurry of 20 simultaneous attacks (as RC outright states?!) seems... kind of a lot for a 1st level spell, but allowing for up to 20 attacks that can essentially never all be used in a single round, and then just expire, seems odd. I'm not sure if the actual touch spell/holding the charge rules RAW (again, outside of RC) are definitive on this, though.

[Troacctid]

Nothing says that you get more than one free touch attack against a target with the casting of the spell either. The rules allow one attack per target as part of the casting of the spell. The spell doesn't give you more attacks, it allows you to use the touch attack up to an amount.



Notice how it doesn't say that you make or get melee touch attacks?
You...you literally just quoted the part of the spell that says you make multiple melee touch attacks! What?

You choose up to one target per level. Then you can make up to one touch attack per level against those targets. So if you're CL 6, you can hit up to six targets with one attack each, or you can hit one target with six attacks, or two targets with three attacks each, etc. That's what it says in the spell: one attack per level.


I guess I’m wondering a couple of things:

1) How does the “up to 1 attack/level” clause work if one doesn’t have, or doesn’t use, Rules Compendium?

The way I’d commonly seen it ruled at actual tables was that you could use attacks at a rate dictated by BAB (with any modifications, like haste, or presumably even AoO) and were considered to be “holding the charge” as long as uses remained and you didn’t cast another spell to end the held charge. Without RC’s explicit language, the spell itself seems a lot more ambiguous.
You can ask your DM, but the ruling you have there is definitely wrong, since the rules are very explicit that you cannot hold the charge for a touch spell with multiple targets. If you were to use iterative attacks and all that, you would just have the touches available for an indefinite duration to use as you like; there's no RAW basis for having them dissipate when you cast another spell.

EDIT: The rule for this is on page 176 of the PHB.

[Darg]

I know RC explicitly states that last bit, but without RC, is there anything that explicitly says so? Again, my experience with chill touch is table experience and frankly it hasn't come up all that many times, but what I've seen in my experience is usually ruled (house ruled?) that remaining charges can be held normally/potentially used later.

I think that makes sense in a "what works in the games I've been in" way, since allowing a flurry of 20 simultaneous attacks (as RC outright states?!) seems... kind of a lot for a 1st level spell, but allowing for up to 20 attacks that can essentially never all be used in a single round, and then just expire, seems odd. I'm not sure if the actual touch spell/holding the charge rules RAW (again, outside of RC) are definitive on this, though.


Some touch spells, such as teleport and water walk, allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can’t hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

That's the rule.


You...you literally just quoted the part of the spell that says you make multiple melee touch attacks! What?

You choose up to one target per level. Then you can make up to one touch attack per level against those targets. So if you're CL 6, you can hit up to six targets with one attack each, or you can hit one target with six attacks, or two targets with three attacks each, etc. That's what it says in the spell: one attack per level.

Where does it say you make multiple touch attacks? It only says you can use the touch attack multiple times. As quoted in a previous quote the only rule that mentions multiple touches is for different targets.


Combine mobile spellcasting with robilar's gambit and double hit for double the pain on AoOs. You could provoke up to 3 AoOs that you could return double the number of attacks.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Yes. That is how it works. You cast the spell, make a bunch of attacks as part of the standard action casting time, and then the spell is done. The attacks can be against different creatures or all against the same one. You can't split it up over multiple rounds; they all happen at once.

You do realize that your reading would allow a 9th level wizard to make 9 melee attacks at his highest BAB doing 45d6 damage?
And it scales infinitely with CL. That's way out of line with other 5th level spells. Or any other spells that aren't reflavored versions of Chill/Storm/Scalding touch.

I can't believe that to be the intended reading.
Which is why i'm interpreting the target entry as not allowing you to attack the same target twice, much like any other spell that allows "up to X" targets.
That way it's decent gishy AoE spell, with damage numbers in line with other spells of its level. Because damage spells don't scale with 9d6xCL.

[SirNibbles]

You do realize that your reading would allow a 9th level wizard to make 9 melee attacks at his highest BAB doing 45d6 damage?
And it scales infinitely with CL. That's way out of line with other 5th level spells. Or any other spells that aren't reflavored versions of Chill/Storm/Scalding touch.

I can't believe that to be the intended reading.
Which is why i'm interpreting the target entry as not allowing you to attack the same target twice, much like any other spell that allows "up to X" targets.
That way it's decent gishy AoE spell, with damage numbers in line with other spells of its level. Because damage spells don't scale with 9d6xCL.

Where are you getting 45d6? 9 touch attacks at 1d6 each is 9d6.

[AnimeTheCat]

as much as the argument between how many touches you get is thrilling, I feel like the Duration: Instantaneous is important here. There is no holding the charge, because there's no charge to hold. You simply can deal 1d6 damage with a touch and you can use that touch a number of times equal to your level. The effect remains even after you touch someone because it's an instantaneous effect. Once you've touched something a number of times equal to your level, there's no more power and it's just normal touches again.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Where are you getting 45d6? 9 touch attacks at 1d6 each is 9d6.
Which is still way out of line with a 1st level spell even before you factor in the strength damage.

But no, i'm talking about Storm Touch (MoE), which is basically lightning-themed Chill Touch and a 5th level spell doing 9d6 + save or stun per touch.
It works exactly the same as Chill Touch so any ruling would affect both.

[KoDT69]

It seems to me that these spells weren't meant to work like that. Spells of a similar level should be about the same power level but dropping 9d6 on 9 targets is not the same as dropping 81d6 on 1 target and forcing 9 saving throws on top of that. I'd assume RAI is they only intend a target to suffer these effects once in a given round. I'd also assume that the Wizard can't move during casting which limits targets to reach (which can be extended by other means).

Yes, my opinion and all that, but c'est la vie.

[Darg]

You get the one attack with the casting, but you can make armed touch attacks in place of normal attacks for the rest of the round. So a swift cast would let you charge your full attack and don't forget the AoOs. These touch attacks are huge for enlightened fists and other martial casters.

[SirNibbles]

Which is still way out of line with a 1st level spell even before you factor in the strength damage.

But no, i'm talking about Storm Touch (MoE), which is basically lightning-themed Chill Touch and a 5th level spell doing 9d6 + save or stun per touch.
It works exactly the same as Chill Touch so any ruling would affect both.

You don't get Str on touch attacks and 9d6 per round is less than a casting of Burning Hands against two enemies.

[AnimeTheCat]

You don't get Str on touch attacks and 9d6 per round is less than a casting of Burning Hands against two enemies.

If you make the touch via an unarmed strike, as if you were using enlightened fist or similar, you could punch to deliver the charge, thus adding your strength modifier and your unarmed strike damage.

[Temotei]

You don't get Str on touch attacks and 9d6 per round is less than a casting of Burning Hands against two enemies.

Chill touch deals Strength damage. That's what they meant.

[Segev]

You could just use Spectral Hand to touch every enemy in medium range.Good catch!


as much as the argument between how many touches you get is thrilling, I feel like the Duration: Instantaneous is important here. There is no holding the charge, because there's no charge to hold. You simply can deal 1d6 damage with a touch and you can use that touch a number of times equal to your level. The effect remains even after you touch someone because it's an instantaneous effect. Once you've touched something a number of times equal to your level, there's no more power and it's just normal touches again.Er, all touch spells can "hold the charge." So, if we're looking at the ruling being that you must have the attacks granted by some means other than the spell itself, you can, at the very least, cast it in round n-1, and then unleash a full attack in round n with all the touches.

Arguably - and this is how I thought it worked before this thread - the best way to rule it if you're not saying it grants all of the attacks at once is that you "hold the charge" until you have made all (CL) attacks.

While 20d6 damage is outsized for a 1st level spell even at CL 20, remember that this is 20 attacks, not one attack. So it is unlikely that all of them will hit, and thus the spell is much more variable than it seems in its damage. The 20 saves or losing 1 str per failed save is a little more concerning, but again, it's unlikely all will be made or failed, especially with a level 1 spell having a base DC of 11 before int/cha mod.



I still think this is an exquisite chassis for Fell Animate, too. Especially with some Slaymates around to defray the metamagic slot increase.

[Troacctid]

Where does it say you make multiple touch attacks? It only says you can use the touch attack multiple times.
What does "using" a touch attack look like to you, exactly, if it doesn't involve touching anyone or making an attack roll? What are you using it for? Doing the dishes? Chilling your beverage?


You do realize that your reading would allow a 9th level wizard to make 9 melee attacks at his highest BAB doing 45d6 damage?
And it scales infinitely with CL. That's way out of line with other 5th level spells. Or any other spells that aren't reflavored versions of Chill/Storm/Scalding touch.
Scroll up. 🤷


as much as the argument between how many touches you get is thrilling, I feel like the Duration: Instantaneous is important here. There is no holding the charge, because there's no charge to hold. You simply can deal 1d6 damage with a touch and you can use that touch a number of times equal to your level. The effect remains even after you touch someone because it's an instantaneous effect. Once you've touched something a number of times equal to your level, there's no more power and it's just normal touches again.
This is one interpretation of how it works without RC, and it's pretty strong under this interpretation too. Every night before bed, a spontaneous caster can use all their left over slots to cast the spell over and over, loading up each casting with as much metamagic as possible. There's no time limit for using the touches, so you end up with a functionally limitless supply of them, including whatever Maximized, Empowered, Fell Drain, Fell Frighten, Fell Weaken, and so on that you can muster.

[sleepyphoenixx]

You don't get Str on touch attacks and 9d6 per round is less than a casting of Burning Hands against two enemies.

As Temotei mentioned Chill Touch does Str damage.

And the point is that Burning Hands doesn't do double or more damage if you only target a single enemy with it.
It always does CL x 1d4, up to 5d4. No matter how many enemies you target. And the same should be true for Chill Touch.

Doing 1d6 damage + a save against 1 Str damage against up to CL enemies is in line with a 1st level spell.
Making CL melee touch attacks at your highest BAB for up to CL x 1d6 + CL saves against 1 Str damage each on a single target is not, especially as a standard action.

I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone could claim with a straight face that any interpretation of a spell where the target has to make potentially dozens of saves in the same round is the intended one.

[Troacctid]

I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone could claim with a straight face that any interpretation of a spell where the target has to make potentially dozens of saves in the same round is the intended one.
What's the alternative? They had the technology to make it one touch per round—they did it that way for rusting grasp, and they deliberately chose to use a different wording here. They also had the technology to limit it to one attack per target—see implosion. They didn't do that either. You definitely can't hold the charge, since the rules for doing so explicitly forbid it (in multiple ways!) and no exception is given.

Rules Compendium was just the nail in the coffin. The spell was dysfunctional long before it came along and clarified the effect. Now the RAW is incontrovertible. It's just how it works. And unfortunately, there isn't any other way to read it that isn't well above par for a 1st-level spell.

[Segev]

What does "using" a touch attack look like to you, exactly, if it doesn't involve touching anyone or making an attack roll? What are you using it for? Doing the dishes? Chilling your beverage?

To be fair, it is not unnatural to read it as, "You can use this touch as many times as your CL, but you have to have attacks to use it with."

It's that reading from which I got my until-this-thread understanding that you just had it on your hand until you used all of them, and had to keep attacking until it was done or you dismissed it.

[SirNibbles]

To be fair, it is not unnatural to read it as, "You can use this touch as many times as your CL, but you have to have attacks to use it with."

It's that reading from which I got my until-this-thread understanding that you just had it on your hand until you used all of them, and had to keep attacking until it was done or you dismissed it.

That does make sense but for the quote in the original post:




Casting time takes precedence over normal rules for attacks, unless a spell’s description says otherwise. If a spell allows its caster to make multiple attacks and has a casting time of 1 standard action, all those attacks occur during that standard action.

Rules Compendium, page 136


Does the spell allow its caster to make multiple attacks? Yes.
Does the spell have a casting time of one standard action? Yes.
Then all the attacks occur during that standard action.

Does the spell description say anything that would contradict this? No.

__

Either way, add it to the list of poorly written rules which can easily be interpreted in many ways.

[Segev]

That does make sense but for the quote in the original post:




Casting time takes precedence over normal rules for attacks, unless a spell’s description says otherwise. If a spell allows its caster to make multiple attacks and has a casting time of 1 standard action, all those attacks occur during that standard action.

Rules Compendium, page 136


Does the spell allow its caster to make multiple attacks? Yes.
Does the spell have a casting time of one standard action? Yes.
Then all the attacks occur during that standard action.

Does the spell description say anything that would contradict this? No.

__

Either way, add it to the list of poorly written rules which can easily be interpreted in many ways.
If you read what I quoted, Troacctid asked about a very specific clause and how it could be read without interpreting it as giving you additional attacks. You reference a separate piece of rules which - I am not disputing - do apply, but which are not even in the spell description, so are not something you can draw upon to invalidate a reading of the phrase Troacctid asked about that matches mine.

Which is to say: I'm not arguing with you about what the rules say. I'm simply explaining that it's not fair to claim there's no other way to read the clause, absent those rules you're quoting, which, again, aren't present in the spell description.

So, the answer to, "What do you think this means?" is fairly answered with, "This thing that, if I also reference other rules, is apparently not the right answer, but is perfectly reasonable if I am only answering the question as asked."

[SirNibbles]

If you read what I quoted, Troacctid asked about a very specific clause and how it could be read without interpreting it as giving you additional attacks. You reference a separate piece of rules which - I am not disputing - do apply, but which are not even in the spell description, so are not something you can draw upon to invalidate a reading of the phrase Troacctid asked about that matches mine.

Which is to say: I'm not arguing with you about what the rules say. I'm simply explaining that it's not fair to claim there's no other way to read the clause, absent those rules you're quoting, which, again, aren't present in the spell description.

So, the answer to, "What do you think this means?" is fairly answered with, "This thing that, if I also reference other rules, is apparently not the right answer, but is perfectly reasonable if I am only answering the question as asked."

I'll be honest, I did slightly misunderstand what you were saying but, having read Troacctid's response, I now see what you meant.

I had that response typed up earlier to someone else's post and just skimmed yours and thought you were talking about the same thing. Serves me right for not reading fully.

[Segev]

I'll be honest, I did slightly misunderstand what you were saying but, having read Troacctid's response, I now see what you meant.

I had that response typed up earlier to someone else's post and just skimmed yours and thought you were talking about the same thing. Serves me right for not reading fully.

No problem. I just wanted to clarify, because I know it's easy to think that a position in the rules is being argued for or against. I wasn't, here; I was just pointing out that I can understand how people can see a difference.

I find myself slightly disappointed that the rules are more functional than I thought they were, because the idea of optimizing to maximize attacks while you have touches left is cool.

As the rules apparently stand, you don't need to, which is actually better...but less of a puzzle to solve.

[Twurps]

....
As the rules apparently stand, you don't need to, which is actually better...but less of a puzzle to solve.

Exactly this.
At one point I thought: Wouldn't it be nice to optimize a touch attack gish/caster. Then considered just about all of the positions as mentioned in this thread and concluded RAW was just too easy. Very disappointing.

So my solution to optimizing chill touch: 'don't'
Is already bad without optimization. don't make it worse.

[Darg]

What does "using" a touch attack look like to you, exactly, if it doesn't involve touching anyone or making an attack roll? What are you using it for? Doing the dishes? Chilling your beverage?

For one, it requires touching the target. Touch spells allow you to touch (in the singular) your targets as part of casting the spell. The spell doesn't give you extra attacks; it gives you charges to deliver anytime you make a touch attack roll.


That does make sense but for the quote in the original post:




Casting time takes precedence over normal rules for attacks, unless a spell’s description says otherwise. If a spell allows its caster to make multiple attacks and has a casting time of 1 standard action, all those attacks occur during that standard action.

Rules Compendium, page 136


Does the spell allow its caster to make multiple attacks? Yes.
Does the spell have a casting time of one standard action? Yes.
Then all the attacks occur during that standard action.

Does the spell description say anything that would contradict this? No.

__

Either way, add it to the list of poorly written rules which can easily be interpreted in many ways.

The rules by default are that you get 1 free attack as part of the casting of a touch spell. If the touch spell allows for multiple targets then you may touch all targets within reach as part of casting the spell. Chill touch type spells only allow you to use the attack up to an amount. It doesn't give you extra attacks; it allows you to use your attacks if you have them. RAW and RAI seem pretty in tune with these spells.


I find myself slightly disappointed that the rules are more functional than I thought they were, because the idea of optimizing to maximize attacks while you have touches left is cool.

The rules only mention that you lose the charge when the round ends. Do a full attack after a quickened cast and every attack is charged for the action and possibly any AoOs left in the round for you.

[Segev]

The rules by default are that you get 1 free attack as part of the casting of a touch spell. If the touch spell allows for multiple targets then you may touch all targets within reach as part of casting the spell. Chill touch type spells only allow you to use the attack up to an amount. It doesn't give you extra attacks; it allows you to use your attacks if you have them. RAW and RAI seem pretty in tune with these spells.



The rules only mention that you lose the charge when the round ends. Do a full attack after a quickened cast and every attack is charged for the action and possibly any AoOs left in the round for you.

Eh, maybe, but that's trying to puzzle-solve to fix a dysfunction in the rules, rather than to try to optimize something that's got a clear intended use. :(

[Darg]

Eh, maybe, but that's trying to puzzle-solve to fix a dysfunction in the rules, rather than to try to optimize something that's got a clear intended use. :(

I don't see it as a dysfunction though and more of a limitation. Considering sneak attack has pretty hamstringing limitations at times, it's not unreasonable for there to be strict limitations on a spell that does something even better and cumulatively.

And trying to optimize within a set of limitations is what optimization is for. It's just hard to optimize properly when those limitations aren't clearly defined. It is quite obvious when being objective that the intent of these spells were not to get 360d6+ damage in a round with storm touch. That's just ridiculous. 9d6 per attack you possess however is not so ridiculous.

By RAW, your reading that they keep the charges until used isn't necessarily counted out as the target line says one creature OR creatures touched. Meaning that if you don't AoE attack multiple creatures when casting, then technically you wouldn't fall under the 1 round limitation and your reading is still preserved.

[AnimeTheCat]

This is one interpretation of how it works without RC, and it's pretty strong under this interpretation too. Every night before bed, a spontaneous caster can use all their left over slots to cast the spell over and over, loading up each casting with as much metamagic as possible. There's no time limit for using the touches, so you end up with a functionally limitless supply of them, including whatever Maximized, Empowered, Fell Drain, Fell Frighten, Fell Weaken, and so on that you can muster.

I was reading over the spell again, and I think I'm kind of just wrong tbh. I would be 100% correct IF the range was personal as opposed to touch, and the target were self as opposed to creature or creatures touched. As it stands now, I'm not sure what to make of the spell as written because it looks like it's trying to be two things at once. I'm going to keep playing with it the way I described, but as far as RAW goes, I don't know how correct I am anymore. C'est la vie I suppose.

[Darg]

I was reading over the spell again, and I think I'm kind of just wrong tbh. I would be 100% correct IF the range was personal as opposed to touch, and the target were self as opposed to creature or creatures touched. As it stands now, I'm not sure what to make of the spell as written because it looks like it's trying to be two things at once. I'm going to keep playing with it the way I described, but as far as RAW goes, I don't know how correct I am anymore. C'est la vie I suppose.

Under the rules for holding the charge, if you cast any other spell while holding a charge then the touch spell dissipates. Troacctid's example of stacking touch spells simply doesn't work (not to mention you would zap yourself or anything you touched while sleeping). You either discharge the spell when you cast it or hold the charge. In the case of chill touch you have 2 options when you cast the spell: target 1 creature for 1 attack or target multiple creatures within reach for 1 attack each. With the first option, whether you hit or missed, you would hold the charge until you expended all your charges. With the second option you have until the end of the round to expend the rest of your charges, otherwise the spell dissipates.

[Segev]

Under the rules for holding the charge, if you cast any other spell while holding a charge then the touch spell dissipates. Troacctid's example of stacking touch spells simply doesn't work (not to mention you would zap yourself or anything you touched while sleeping). You either discharge the spell when you cast it or hold the charge. In the case of chill touch you have 2 options when you cast the spell: target 1 creature for 1 attack or target multiple creatures within reach for 1 attack each. With the first option, whether you hit or missed, you would hold the charge until you expended all your charges. With the second option you have until the end of the round to expend the rest of your charges, otherwise the spell dissipates.

On the bolded part: Is this you enumerating the two possible rulings, or are you saying the RAW actually give you this choice? If the latter, would you please explain your reasoning? I don't think I've seen this interpretation yet in this thread.

[tiercel]

Wow, OK, part of my problem is that I had no idea how many different places talked about touch attacks. Yeesh.


Some touch spells, such as teleport and water walk,allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can’t hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.


Some touch spells, such as teleport and water walk,allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell.


Holding the Charge… You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action.

So if you are holding the charge (because the touch spell has both multiple targets and a listed duration?) you can only touch up to six friends as a full-round action, but if you can’t hold the charge, then you can touch as many friends as you can reach in the same round as part of the casting, but if you’re touching enemies with chill touch, you can touch as many enemies as you can reach in the same round as part of the casting up to 1/caster level...or can you really even touch one enemy that number of times as part of the casting?

Geez, no wonder I guess that I’ve seen this spell (1) not used much and (2) houseruled when I have seen it, because it either seems too bad or too good. I think the more I read the more confused I get about how to use the spell in some reasonable way in an actual game.

I guess duskblades channeling chill touch are actually easier to adjudicate by comparison?

[Segev]

It's weird that they have the clause on "multiple touches" not being able to be held.

[Kalkra]

I guess duskblades channeling chill touch are actually easier to adjudicate by comparison?

The problem with Duskblades is that the rules don't really clarify what happens with a touch spell with multiple targets. Like, suppose you were using Chill Touch at CL 3 against three opponents, can you make an attack against each of them as a standard action? That alone is more powerful than Whirlwind Attack. Get a spiked chain and go to town. If you can make all those attacks against just one opponent, get a minotaur greathammer and go to town (or keep the spiked chain, but I like the image with the minotaur greathammer better).

[Segev]

I think - and I know I'm not really ruling on the RAW here so much as looking at two possible readings that might wind up being house rules - that the easiest way to adjudicate this is to either use the method outlined in the OP of this thread, or the way I've thought it worked (which more or less ignores the rule excluding multi-touch touch spells from the ability to hold the charge).

So, either run it as granting as many touch attacks as part of the casting as you have caster levels, which may be targeted at anybody you can hit with said touch attacks, or run it as giving you a single touch attack as part of the attack, and then the next CL-1 things you touch (which ideally will be with additional touch attacks using your usual means of gaining attacks to make them with) until you use up the charges.

[Darg]

On the bolded part: Is this you enumerating the two possible rulings, or are you saying the RAW actually give you this choice? If the latter, would you please explain your reasoning? I don't think I've seen this interpretation yet in this thread.

The rules, not the spell, give you an attack. If you notice, touch spells never say that you make an attack only that when you touch something this happens. The rules also allow touching multiple targets as part of casting if the target line allows for multiple targets.

Chill Touch and similar spells have "Target: creature or creatures touched (up to one/level)." Unlike other multi-target touch spells, they have the "You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level." The way I see it, when you cast a spell you declare all functions as it's cast. You choose to target one creature or to target multiple. If you choose the one target you follow all the rules for single target touch spells except with multiple charges. If you choose to multi-target you can't hold the charge and you have to expend your charges within the round.

I changed my stance to this when I paid closer attention to the target line and how spells function.


So if you are holding the charge (because the touch spell has both multiple targets and a listed duration?) you can only touch up to six friends as a full-round action, but if you can’t hold the charge, then you can touch as many friends as you can reach in the same round as part of the casting, but if you’re touching enemies with chill touch, you can touch as many enemies as you can reach in the same round as part of the casting up to 1/caster level...or can you really even touch one enemy that number of times as part of the casting?

On single creature touches like cure light wounds, you can hold the charge and on your next full action touch up to 6 willing friends that aren't trying to avoid you. If they try to avoid you they aren't being friendly and you have to touch attack which isn't part of the full-round action. If they forego their AC, you can touch up to 6 targets. With Chilling Touch I doubt any enemy is going to willingly forego their AC so the full-round action is worthless in that scenario.

[Segev]

The rules, not the spell, give you an attack. If you notice, touch spells never say that you make an attack only that when you touch something this happens. The rules also allow touching multiple targets as part of casting if the target line allows for multiple targets.

Chill Touch and similar spells have "Target: creature or creatures touched (up to one/level)." Unlike other multi-target touch spells, they have the "You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level." The way I see it, when you cast a spell you declare all functions as it's cast. You choose to target one creature or to target multiple. If you choose the one target you follow all the rules for single target touch spells except with multiple charges. If you choose to multi-target you can't hold the charge and you have to expend your charges within the round.

I changed my stance to this when I paid closer attention to the target line and how spells function.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

I will point out one more semantic element which may or may not be RAI (because it isn't how, colloquially, we tend to use the word anymore), but "or" technically is synonymous with "and/or." (It requires a specifically "exclusive or" to remove the possibility of "both" being a valid response to "do you have x or y?")

So, under your reading of it - which I am not faulting, just extending an analysis on - "creature or creatures touched" can mean "creature and creatures," that is, "you may touch one creature, multiple creatures, or both."

I would even go so far as to note that the reason to frame it as "creature or creatures touched" is due to the English-language oddity that it's technically two distinct words to say singular vs. plural. So an argument can be made, under the semantics of logic, English, and your interpretation of the spell, that in setting the parameters of the spell you can choose "creature and creatures touched." Not sure how that fully interacts with the single target/multiple target touch spells, though.

[Darg]

I never heard that before. I googled it and they have an archaic form of "or" that means "either" when used in front of an or statement. That doesn't lend itself to your expanation though. Maybe it's a loosening of the meaning of an introduction of an explanation? I don't know, but it is something to think about even if I couldn't accept that meaning myself.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I never heard that before.
"Inclusive or" is the standard "or" in natural language, see here (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disjunction/#DisjLang) for some (technical) background. Yay linguistics!

[Darg]

"Inclusive or" is the standard "or" in natural language, see here (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disjunction/#DisjLang) for some (technical) background. Yay linguistics!

My whole life of speaking English and I have never understood that this meaning existed in anything other than programming. I don't say, "Do you want milk or sugar for your coffee?" I say, "Do you want any milk or sugar for your coffee?" Without the determiner all I hear in my head is exclusive or. In my head I need something that says both are an option to provide context for the meaning.

Either way, "creature or creatures touched" is an exclusive or by logic if not by intent. You can't simultaneously target only one creature and target multiple creatures. The moment you achieve one you falsify the other. On the other hand, if you had a quantifier you could say that the and statement could be true. "any creature or creatures touched" would be true if both alternatives were met. The difference is specific quantity vs ambiguous part of the class "creature."

[Troacctid]

The "or" doesn't really matter. If you target a single creature, the spell still allows you to make multiple attacks against that creature, which means they all occur during the spell's standard action casting time, and you explicitly do not have to use your iterative attacks for them.

[Kalkra]

I agree that the "or" isn't particularly important, but I still wanna disagree with the previous statement that the default "or" is inclusive. Maybe nominally it should be, but the reason people say "A or B or both" is because they think of the exclusive "or". Admittedly, sometimes people use the inclusive "or", usually for conditions, i.e. "when A or B happens".

[Segev]

I agree that the "or" isn't particularly important, but I still wanna disagree with the previous statement that the default "or" is inclusive. Maybe nominally it should be, but the reason people say "A or B or both" is because they think of the exclusive "or". Admittedly, sometimes people use the inclusive "or", usually for conditions, i.e. "when A or B happens".

I'm not going to push the subject. In modern American colloquial usage, it tends to actually be treated more as exclusive, with a soft inclusivity when the two options are not inherently mutually exclusive. The "soft" inclusivity is because it's considered a little smart-alecy to say "yes" to an "or" question.

We've actually drifted, I think, to the point that "inclusive or" has become the "and/or" construction. I know I use it in common speech as well as writing, and I've heard others do so.

It's more amusing, at times, to explicitly use "xor" when I want to verbally or in writing make it clear I mean the exclusive or, but that isn't as clear as embracing the use of "and/or," since people will not inherently recognize that "or" is non-exclusive in casual conversation unless the context is particularly clear on the subject.

In terms of this discussion regarding the targeting of chill touch, I mostly wanted to promote a little discussion on it, and certainly am not going to argue that the RAW make an explicit statement based on a by-context probably-not-intended definition of "or" as "non-exclusive."

[SirNibbles]

The "or" doesn't really matter. If you target a single creature, the spell still allows you to make multiple attacks against that creature, which means they all occur during the spell's standard action casting time, and you explicitly do not have to use your iterative attacks for them.

Some people have claimed above that the spell isn't actually giving you attacks. In response to that claim, I'd say compare Chill Touch, Snilloc's Snowball, and Scorching Ray:




SNILLOC'S SNOWBALL
Evocation [Cold]
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 0 ft.
Effect: Orb of cold
Duration: 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
An icy sphere of bitter cold appears in your hand, harming neither you nor your equipment. You can use the Snilloc’s snowball to strike opponents with a melee touch attack, or you can throw the orb as a ranged touch attack (maximum range 120 feet, no range penalty). Either use deals 1d6 points of cold damage plus 1 point per caster level (maximum 1d6+5). Right after you hurl the icy sphere, another appears in your hand. You may throw up to one Snilloc’s snowball per caster level (maximum five orbs) before exhausting the spell.

Unapproachable East, page 52





Scorching Ray
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: One or more rays
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
You blast your enemies with fiery rays. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all bolts must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.

Player's Handbook, page 274





Chill Touch
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Targets: Creature or creatures touched (up
to one/level)
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial or Will
negates; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes
A touch from your hand, which glows with blue energy, disrupts the life force of living creatures. Each touch channels negative energy that deals 1d6 points of damage. The touched creature also takes 1 point of Strength damage unless it makes a successful Fortitude saving throw. You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level.

Player's Handbook, page 209


Based in the wording, there seems to be no reason why Chill Touch wouldn't function the same as Scorching Ray with the exception of being a melee touch rather than a ray (ranged touch).

[Darg]

The "or" doesn't really matter. If you target a single creature, the spell still allows you to make multiple attacks against that creature, which means they all occur during the spell's standard action casting time, and you explicitly do not have to use your iterative attacks for them.

It doesn't allow you to make multiple attacks though. It doesn't even say you get attacks. Please tell me where the spell mentions making an attack? What about providing bonus, extra attacks? It doesn't. By default that means it doesn't override the normal touch spell rules which only provide for one touch for each target as part of the cast. RAW or RAI, making multiple attacks with the casting of the spell against one target makes no sense.


Some people have claimed above that the spell isn't actually giving you attacks. In response to that claim, I'd say compare Chill Touch, Snilloc's Snowball, and Scorching Ray:

Based in the wording, there seems to be no reason why Chill Touch wouldn't function the same as Scorching Ray with the exception of being a melee touch rather than a ray (ranged touch).

The difference is that Scorching ray and Snilloc's Snowball are producing immediate effects. The snowballs are created with the spell and with it not being a ray or touch spell does not provide a free attack(s). Rays are fired on completion of the spell, hence you can't hold the charge unless you have an exception. Touch spells however are only discharged on touching something. Troacctid is saying that a 20th level caster could make 20 attacks against the same target with the casting of the spell. With a level 1 spell. I don't know about you, but that makes no sense. If what Troacctid is saying is true it opens the door for all targets of the spell to be subject to all those attacks. Each target receives the results brought by the effect of the spell. 9 targets within reach receive 20 touch attacks each. Seems like how it is supposed to be done right? It's not going to grind the game down to a halt right?. Storm and Scaling Touch don't have the "creature" in the target line, but they still target each creature with the effect of the spell which includes the line "You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level." If the spell gives you extra attacks it must be multiplied per target

RAW or RAI, it simply doesn't make any sense for this to happen from a mechanical, balance, or fun standpoint

[Troacctid]

It doesn't allow you to make multiple attacks though. It doesn't even say you get attacks. Please tell me where the spell mentions making an attack? What about providing bonus, extra attacks? It doesn't. By default that means it doesn't override the normal touch spell rules which only provide for one touch for each target as part of the cast. RAW or RAI, making multiple attacks with the casting of the spell against one target makes no sense.
So you're claiming it doesn't allow you to make multiple attacks, but you can somehow still target multiple people with it? How are you hitting three enemies with just one attack, Darg? You don't. You make multiple attacks, Darg. Which means the spell does allow you to make multiple attacks, which means you make all the attacks as part of the resolution of the spell, as per RC. "But it's not the spell that allows it!" So if you weren't casting a spell, you'd still be able to make three attacks at full BAB against three different targets as a standard action, apropos of nothing? "But that's from a separate rule, the spell text doesn't say anything about it!" Then what's this text here that says one attack per level? Just a lie?


The difference is that Scorching ray and Snilloc's Snowball are producing immediate effects. The snowballs are created with the spell and with it not being a ray or touch spell does not provide a free attack(s). Rays are fired on completion of the spell, hence you can't hold the charge unless you have an exception. Touch spells however are only discharged on touching something.
So if I'm at your table and I cast meteor swarm, how many of the meteors can I fire at once? How about hailstones? Do I have to wait a turn to throw them? If so, do the targets need to be within 30 feet of each other during the casting, or during the turn I throw them? What if they move between throws?


Troacctid is saying that a 20th level caster could make 20 attacks against the same target with the casting of the spell. With a level 1 spell. I don't know about you, but that makes no sense. If what Troacctid is saying is true it opens the door for all targets of the spell to be subject to all those attacks. Each target receives the results brought by the effect of the spell. 9 targets within reach receive 20 touch attacks each. Seems like how it is supposed to be done right? It's not going to grind the game down to a halt right?. Storm and Scaling Touch don't have the "creature" in the target line, but they still target each creature with the effect of the spell which includes the line "You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level." If the spell gives you extra attacks it must be multiplied per target

RAW or RAI, it simply doesn't make any sense for this to happen from a mechanical, balance, or fun standpoint
20 attacks against 9 targets would be 180 attacks when the spell only allows up to 20. You couldn't do that many.

[Segev]

Troacctid is saying that a 20th level caster could make 20 attacks against the same target with the casting of the spell. With a level 1 spell. I don't know about you, but that makes no sense. If what Troacctid is saying is true it opens the door for all targets of the spell to be subject to all those attacks. Each target receives the results brought by the effect of the spell. 9 targets within reach receive 20 touch attacks each.

As far as I can tell, Troacctid's reading would say that a 20th level caster gets 20 touch attacks, to be divided between anywhere from 1 to 20 targets however the caster chooses. 9 targets could receive 2-3 attacks each, or 1 attack each on 8 of them with 12 attacks on the 9th, or any such combination, but in no way does Troacctid's argument seem to me to support claiming it would lead to 9 targets getting targeted by 20 attacks each.

[Darg]

So you're claiming it doesn't allow you to make multiple attacks, but you can somehow still target multiple people with it? How are you hitting three enemies with just one attack, Darg?

As been quoted in this thread multiple times by me, the rules lay out how multiple creatures touched works. The rule for touch spells with multiple touch targets is on pg 175 of the PHB.


Some touch spells, such as teleport and water walk, allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

Also on pg 140:


In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target.

You get one touch per target.


You make multiple attacks, Darg. Which means the spell does allow you to make multiple attacks, which means you make all the attacks as part of the resolution of the spell, as per RC. "But it's not the spell that allows it!" So if you weren't casting a spell, you'd still be able to make three attacks at full BAB against three different targets as a standard action, apropos of nothing? "But that's from a separate rule, the spell text doesn't say anything about it!" Then what's this text here that says one attack per level? Just a lie?

The spell text says "can use" not "can make" attacks. The spell doesn't need to give you attacks as you already possess them by virtue of the rules laid out in the PHB. So, the line in the RC about making multiple attacks only applies to each target of chill touch as the spell doesn't explicitly allow you to make more than one attack against a single creature.



So if I'm at your table and I cast meteor swarm, how many of the meteors can I fire at once? How about hailstones? Do I have to wait a turn to throw them? If so, do the targets need to be within 30 feet of each other during the casting, or during the turn I throw them? What if they move between throws?

First, they aren't touch spells; so the comparison is to apples and oranges. Second, Meteor Swarm tells you: "When you cast it, four 2-foot-diameter spheres spring from your outstretched hand and streak in straight lines to the spots you select." The Area line even tells you that you make 4 40-ft.-radius spreads. Third, Hailstones says, "You create frigid hailstones that strike your enemies." Nothing in the spell says you are throwing the hailstones yourself either.


20 attacks against 9 targets would be 180 attacks when the spell only allows up to 20. You couldn't do that many.

Nothing is preventing it from happening if the spell provides you with extra attacks. If magic missile didn't have the "A single missile can strike only one creature," line it would change the entire reading of the spell wouldn't it?


As far as I can tell, Troacctid's reading would say that a 20th level caster gets 20 touch attacks, to be divided between anywhere from 1 to 20 targets however the caster chooses. 9 targets could receive 2-3 attacks each, or 1 attack each on 8 of them with 12 attacks on the 9th, or any such combination, but in no way does Troacctid's argument seem to me to support claiming it would lead to 9 targets getting targeted by 20 attacks each.

It's not that their argument allows it. It's that that reading opens a can of worms. The spell doesn't provide it's own limitation for the number of attacks per target or in reverse doesn't limit the number of targets per attack. Sure you get 20 attacks but there is nothing that says you don't hit all targets in reach with each attack. Take Whirlwind Attack for example and you added "You can use this melee attack up to one time per level."


Benefit

When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You can use this melee attack up to one time per level.

If it gives attacks you make multiple whirlwind attacks. If it limits the attacks, then during your whirlwind attack you only make up to this many attacks. Is it a bonus or a limiter?

[Segev]

It's not that their argument allows it. It's that that reading opens a can of worms. The spell doesn't provide it's own limitation for the number of attacks per target or in reverse doesn't limit the number of targets per attack. Sure you get 20 attacks but there is nothing that says you don't hit all targets in reach with each attack.

I think the language in the spell is pretty clear:


A touch from your hand, which glows with blue energy, disrupts the life force of living creatures. Each touch channels negative energy that deals 1d6 points of damage. The touched creature also takes 1 point of Strength damage unless it makes a successful Fortitude saving throw. You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level.

"You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level."

Melee touch attacks cannot target more than one creature.

The SPELL can target "Creature or creatures touched (up to one/level)," which explicitly ties "targeting" to "touching," and limits the number of touches to your caster level. You can refer back to all the generalized rules you want, but specific does override general. General rules can be used to figure out how to apply the specifics, but they cannot override the specifics. The text here is quite clear: you can touch up to CL times, and each creature touched is a target of the spell.

Arguably, you could use it on up to 6 friends and still get CL melee touch attacks, but not only is that a likely-flawed reading of the rules (and certainly against the intent), but it's asinine because you wouldn't want to use this on allies. There might be an extremely niche case where your character is a deceiver who fools people into thinking he's casting a beneficial spell to get the generic multitouch rules that let him touch up to six friends.

[Troacctid]

You can't have it both ways. If you're arguing that the spell gives you an attack option that you can use round after round, then it can't also let you attack immediately with that option during the casting of the spell unless it explicitly says so. But if you're able to deliver it as you cast it, there's no reason why you would only be able to deliver part of the spell. And if it's an attack option that can be used round after round, then you don't have to hold the charge in order to deliver it—simply casting the spell grants you a number of attacks that you can then use at an unspecified future time, with no risk of accidentally discharging them. (In fact, the rules strictly forbid you from holding the charge on it even if you wanted to.)

[Darg]

The text here is quite clear: you can touch up to CL times, and each creature touched is a target of the spell.

The problem here is the term used in the line. A more accurate rephrasing of the text would be:


The text here is quite clear: you can use this touch up to CL times, and each creature touched is a target of the spell.

It completely alters the meaning of the text. With this reading it is referring to how many charges you possess, not how many attacks you can make with the casting of the spell.

[Segev]

You can't have it both ways. If you're arguing that the spell gives you an attack option that you can use round after round, then it can't also let you attack immediately with that option during the casting of the spell unless it explicitly says so. But if you're able to deliver it as you cast it, there's no reason why you would only be able to deliver part of the spell. And if it's an attack option that can be used round after round, then you don't have to hold the charge in order to deliver it—simply casting the spell grants you a number of attacks that you can then use at an unspecified future time, with no risk of accidentally discharging them. (In fact, the rules strictly forbid you from holding the charge on it even if you wanted to.)

Given that its duration is instantaneous, if the spell requires you to provide your own attacks (possibly with the exception of a single one as part of casting), it has to be relying on the "held charge" rules to let you retain the touches from round to round.

It is likely that this is a dysfunction, with a PHB spell written in 3.0 and barely updated at all in 3.5 not really meshing correctly with the way the touch/multi-touch spells worked.

It is also possible that it simply does allow you to make a melee touch attack up to 20 times as part of casting the spell, as the OP discovered/asserted.


The problem here is the term used in the line. A more accurate rephrasing of the text would be:



It completely alters the meaning of the text. With this reading it is referring to how many charges you possess, not how many attacks you can make with the casting of the spell.

That doesn't alter the meaning of the text at all. >_>

And it actually says you can use this "melee touch attack" rather explicitly.

Perhaps you are arguing past me? I am asserting that the text is clear as to how many times the spell can be discharged. You get CL melee touch attacks with it. No more. Under no circumstances does this give you CL melee touch attacks against a number of creatures greater than 1. I am not making any other point, here. (If you are arguing past me, I don't know what point you're supporting; the reason I suspect maybe we are is that I don't see how the change to rephrasing you gave alters the meaning of the text at all wrt my point.)

[Troacctid]

Given that its duration is instantaneous, if the spell requires you to provide your own attacks (possibly with the exception of a single one as part of casting), it has to be relying on the "held charge" rules to let you retain the touches from round to round.
Why? I don't see anything in the rules that would require this. In fact, like I said, they actively preclude it.

Instantaneous is really just the same as permanent, minus the ability to dispel it.

[Darg]

You can't have it both ways. If you're arguing that the spell gives you an attack option that you can use round after round, then it can't also let you attack immediately with that option during the casting of the spell unless it explicitly says so. But if you're able to deliver it as you cast it, there's no reason why you would only be able to deliver part of the spell. And if it's an attack option that can be used round after round, then you don't have to hold the charge in order to deliver it—simply casting the spell grants you a number of attacks that you can then use at an unspecified future time, with no risk of accidentally discharging them. (In fact, the rules strictly forbid you from holding the charge on it even if you wanted to.)

It's the reason why we had the entire conversation about inclusive/exclusive or. Because chill touch has the "or" in the target line, the character has the choice of making it single target or multi-target as all determinations are made at spell cast. This wouldn't apply to storm touch or scalding touch. The line "You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level," as a limiter, not granting bonus attacks.

As I have said, delivering a touch spell as part of the spell cast is an inherent property of touch spells as attributed by the rules presented. That inherent property only allows one attack per target as part of the spell cast. Chill Touch does not override this property of touch spells.

[Segev]

Why? I don't see anything in the rules that would require this. In fact, like I said, they actively preclude it.

Instantaneous is really just the same as permanent, minus the ability to dispel it.

Hm, that is a good point. I see the argument. I...don't entirely agree with it, because "instantaneous" in the context of spells such as chill touch is tends to refer to the fact that it leaves effects behind after its instantaneous duration is over. The permanent effect is the damage (or whatnot) that is dealt by instantaneous magic.

I do not think the spell is written with the intent that it be an instantaneous granting of CL uses of a melee touch attack, but I can see the RAW argument for it.

[SirNibbles]

As I have said, delivering a touch spell as part of the spell cast is an inherent property of touch spells as attributed by the rules presented. That inherent property only allows one attack per target as part of the spell cast.

What makes you say that? The general rule is that you can make as many attacks as you can, but you have to use a full-round action to gain bonus attacks.




Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action (see Full-Round Actions, below) in order to get more than one attack.
...
Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon (see Two-Weapon Fighting under Special Attacks, page 160), or for some special reason (such as a feat or a magic item) you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.


Player's Handbook, pages 140; 143


The rule for attacks granted by spells is an exception to this rule (see quoted rule above).

Combining these two rules, you get that, in the time it takes to cast the spell, you can make as many attacks as the spell allows you to make.

Nowhere in the rules does it state that having multiple melee attacks allows you to attack the same creature more than once- the same way that Chill Touch doesn't explicitly say you can attack the same creature more than once. For the sake of consistency, are you going to argue that you can't full attack in melee unless you have more than one target?

[Darg]

What makes you say that? The general rule is that you can make as many attacks as you can, but you have to use a full-round action to gain bonus attacks.

The rule for attacks granted by spells is an exception to this rule (see quoted rule above).

Combining these two rules, you get that, in the time it takes to cast the spell, you can make as many attacks as the spell allows you to make.

Nowhere in the rules does it state that having multiple melee attacks allows you to attack the same creature more than once- the same way that Chill Touch doesn't explicitly say you can attack the same creature more than once. For the sake of consistency, are you going to argue that you can't full attack in melee unless you have more than one target?

I think the only thing we are disagreeing on is whether chill touch gives you attacks. My argument is that chill touch, as a touch spell, does not give you attacks. This is not an issue as the general rules for touch spells provide the attacks themselves. The opposing argument is that chill touch and similar touch spells give you a number of touch attacks to spend immediately upon casting the spell. Spell charges vs free attacks that are charged.


I do not think the spell is written with the intent that it be an instantaneous granting of CL uses of a melee touch attack, but I can see the RAW argument for it.

It could also be easily argued that such multi-target touch spells work just like a mass cure/inflict light wounds. You can't target the same creature more than once. If you could they instantly become the best single target damage/heal spells.

[tiercel]

RAI:

I think I would have less problem with chill touch providing up to <caster level> attacks, one per target within reach, all at once, but that also seems kind of weak. (Yes, okay, it's a first level spell.)

I think it bothers me that a 1st level spell would be able to, or even be intended to, without any metamagic or additional chicanery, enable <caster level> attack rolls against a single target all in one go. That seems... strong. (Yes, a 20th level wizard has stronger things to do, but that seems a bit much for a 1st level spell, and especially for a gish-type -- why bother with Arcane Strike if FLURRY OF CHILL TOUCHES can do nearly 20d6 as a standard action to a single target, no save, with the outside chance of at least some Strength damage?

--Yes, OK, it depends on your target not being specifically protected against negative energy, of course, and a gish might have scarier attacks when full-rounding, but as a standard action it seems to me beyond merely respectable, much less for a 1st level spell!

RAW:

It is interesting that scorching ray, for instance, goes to the trouble of specifically calling out "The rays may be fired at the same or different targets" and might give room to argue that chill touch can have <caster level> targets but not necessarily multiple attacks against any single target?

[Segev]

It could also be easily argued that such multi-target touch spells work just like a mass cure/inflict light wounds. You can't target the same creature more than once. If you could they instantly become the best single target damage/heal spells.

I disagree. It says you can make up to CL melee touch attacks. At no point does it suggest you are limited in how many of those you can direct at any particular target.

[Darg]

I think the most balanced interpretation would be that you get your 1 attack per target with the casting of the spell. These attacks use up your charges. Any other attack made within the round up to the limit can be made with the touch attack. At the end of the round (just before your next turn) any remaining charges are lost.


I disagree. It says you can make up to CL melee touch attacks. At no point does it suggest you are limited in how many of those you can direct at any particular target.

That's fine, I'm not too hung over on the interpretation myself. If I understand you right, you don't think the spell lets a 20th level caster touch a single creature 20 times within a cast, but the spell gives you charges that you use with your available attacks?

[Segev]

That's fine, I'm not too hung over on the interpretation myself. If I understand you right, you don't think the spell lets a 20th level caster touch a single creature 20 times within a cast, but the spell gives you charges that you use with your available attacks?

That's how I understood it from before this thread. (With the addition that you didn't "run out" until you touched CL things, per the holding-charges rules.)

I do buy the argument in the OP that you get all CL attacks as part of the casting, but I am not wedded to it and probably wouldn't run it that way.

[Darg]

If anything, the most interesting thing I learned from digging up those quotes in the PHB is that multi-target touch spells allow you to keep touching targets until the end of the round they are cast up to the target limit.

[Segev]

If anything, the most interesting thing I learned from digging up those quotes in the PHB is that multi-target touch spells allow you to keep touching targets until the end of the round they are cast up to the target limit.

So you agree with the OP's interpretation, then, or am I misunderstanding you, now?

[Darg]

So you agree with the OP's interpretation, then, or am I misunderstanding you, now?

Nah, I still don't think the spell gives you free attacks by virtue of it's effect because it doesn't say it does. So I'll stick with the rules for this:


I think the most balanced interpretation would be that you get your 1 attack per target with the casting of the spell. These attacks use up your charges. Any other attack made within the round up to the limit can be made with the touch attack. At the end of the round (just before your next turn) any remaining charges are lost.

The only other interpretation that I see is possible is that these touch spells don't actually allow you to touch multiple targets as part of casting the spell. Meaning it works exactly like inflict wounds, but with multiple charges. This interpretation comes from the different target lines that these have from spells like Water Walk and the rules talking about these touch spells touching willing targets as part of the casting.

The RC seems to imply this interpretation with how it ignores whether a touch spell for opponents can actually touch multiple targets:


Allies and Touch Spells: To use a touch spell on allies during combat, you cast the spell and then touch those you can reach. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If the spell allows you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell, you can't hold the charge (see below)--you must touch all targets of the spell in the same turn that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows only one target, you can touch that target during the same turn you cast the spell, or you can hold the charge.
You can move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. If you use a full-round action to touch Multiple targets, you can take only a 5-foot step.

Opponents and Touch Spells: To use a touch spell against an opponent during combat, you cast the spell and then touch that opponent, You can touch the opponent on the same turn you cast the spell. To touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll to make a melee touch attack. You can hold the charge and move as defined for touching allies.